United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 9, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41170
SANTIAGO VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Divisions, D. BLEVINS, DAVID COLLINS, and
AHIA SHABAZZ.
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas
(USDC No. 6:05-CV-00051)
________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, DEMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Santiago Vasquez appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 action. Vasquez
alleges that the defendants, including the warden of Vasquez’s prison unit, the
Director of Clinical Services, a physician’s assistant, and two dentists, violated
Vasquez’s constitutional rights by refusing to provide him with dentures. The
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
magistrate judge dismissed Vasquez’s suit as frivolous and for failing to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1)&(2).1 We find that Vasquez has
stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Dr. Wells and Dr.
Collins, and therefore reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further
proceedings.
I. Standard of Review
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires courts to dismiss a
prisoner civil rights suit if the action is frivolous or does not state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1)&(2). We review the
dismissal of a complaint as frivolous for abuse of discretion, but review a dismissal
for failure to state a claim under a de novo standard. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d
732, 733–34 (5th Cir. 1998). We construe Vasquez’s pleadings liberally, as he is a
pro se litigant, and will dismiss his claim only if he could prove no set of facts that
would entitle him to relief. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21, 92 S. Ct.
594, 596 (1972).
1
Vasquez consented to have the magistrate judge enter final judgment in this
case. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1).
2
II. Analysis
Vasquez has claimed that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by
denying him dentures. To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must
prove that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need,
leading to an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 104, 97 S. Ct. 285, 291 (1976).
A serious medical need is one for which treatment has been recommended or
for which the need is so apparent that even laymen would recognize that care is
required. Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 345 n.12 (5th Cir. 2006). Vasquez has
alleged that because he has no dentures, he suffers from difficulty eating, headaches,
disfigurement, severe pain, bleeding in his mouth, and blood in his stool. In
addition, a doctor recommended dentures for Vasquez. These allegations are
sufficient to state a claim for a serious medical need for dentures. See Farrow v.
West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1244–45 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that a prisoner with similar
symptoms demonstrated a serious medical need for dentures); Wynn v. Southward,
251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (same); Hunt v. Dental Dept., 865 F.2d 198, 201
(9th Cir. 1988) (same).
Vasquez has also alleged that the dentists Collins and Wells were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need. Drs. Collins and Wells participated in the
3
decision of a dental committee that denied Vasquez’s request for dentures on the
grounds that Vasquez had not lost weight. As the dentists have not yet responded to
Vasquez’s complaint, it is not apparent beyond doubt that Vasquez could prove no
set of facts consistent with his complaint that would allow him relief against the
dentists; it is possible that the dentists knew of and deliberately disregarded
Vasquez’s alleged serious medical need. Thus, Vasquez’s claims against Wells and
Collins are not frivolous, nor appropriate for dismissal. See Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102 (1957).
In so ruling, we express no opinion as to the ultimate merits of the case. The
magistrate judge may determine at summary judgment that no Eighth Amendment
violation occurred, for several reasons. For example, it is unclear whether Collins
and Wells were aware of all of Vasquez's alleged symptoms. In addition, even if
they knew of Vasquez's complaints, it is possible that in the dentists' medical
judgment, dentures would not have helped Vaquez. With only the statements of
Vasquez, however, we cannot say the cause is frivolous, and that is all we hold.
The magistrate judge properly dismissed Vasquez’s claims against all other
defendants. Warden Blevins and Director of Clinical Services Shabazz were not
deliberately indifferent to Vasquez’s condition; Vasquez’s claims merely
demonstrate that they deferred to the judgment of medical professionals by denying
4
him dentures. In addition, Vasquez has abandoned any claims against Physician
Assistant Fortner by failing to brief them on appeal. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993).
III. Conclusion
We reverse the judgment below as to defendants Wells and Collins, but
affirm as to all other defendants.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
5